Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 361
# 1 cruisers are underpowered...
02-02-2013, 08:55 AM
Hey there community, i think this is a common sense topic, so after a big talk with some pvp folks on organized pvp, and with my brother ( kirby ) i think almost everyone thinks that actually, cruisers are underpowered, so i decided to create this topic.

well, comparing standard cruisers with standard escorts you will notice that the main trade is hull for turn rate as you can see with this ( not refering consoles, boff stations, crew, device slots, inertia rating or weapon slots ):

...........assault cruiser---patrol escort ( examples )
hull points: 39k -------------- 31k
shield mod: 1 ------------- 0,9
turn rate: 7 --------------- 16
impulse mod: 0.15 ------- 0.20
after comparing the numbers you can clearly see that the patrol escort has 8k less hull, 0.1 less shield, but +9 turn rate and more impulse modifier( why ? cruisers have bigger nacelles -.- ), lets be realistic, the gain of 8k hull doesnt compensate that loss of maneuverability, and the escort has more impulse modifier, this is important, the defense value of an escort almost compensates that loss of hull, which is almost nothing on pvp, anything with more than 50k hull is impractical, you dont need it !

if the cruisers are the mother of all vessels, with the top weapons, the top technology, the space combat tanks, the frontline battle ships, why people prefer escorts ? theres something wrong here right ?

thats because 1 turn rate is not the same of 1k hull as the devs think, thats why cruiseres are underpowered= lack of maneuverability, and a not well compensated resilliency: that is well known

why people dont buy galaxy classes ? dreadnaughts ? omg come on, the spinal beam is almost useless on a ship with that turn rate, its almost the same thing as having dual heavy cannons on the voquv carrier, pointless...

as it seems, carriers dont loose anything to trade off for their hangar slots, so lets make a list
these are the tier5 non-carrier ships with almost or more 40k hull and less than 10 turn rate:(hope i dont forget any )

assault cruiser
star cruiser
odissey star cruiser
ambassador
exploration cruiser and dreadnaught
heavy cruiser retrofit
advanced heavy cruiser retrofit

bortas
neghvar

dkora
this list includes fleet versions.
i didnt include the vorcha (tor'kath on the fleet version) or the galor, because these have 10 turn rate, although the galor doesnt have more than 40k hull, so the galor could be a perhaps ?

i mean, if these ships were good, people wouldnt prefer bops, or escorts ... am i right ?
if you notice, the ships with the lower turn rates on this list, are the ships that pvpers dont use or the ships you dont see pvping!
why ? coz 7 or 8k hull doesnt compensate the high turn rate, and the impulse mod, escorts can do the so much called "speed tank", ive seen bops tanking 6 guys on kerrat, any pvper knows about this.
So, hull and crew is not simetric to turn rate and impulse mod
if bops have a battle cloak ( let's say, compensating its lack of hull and shield ) why cruisers dont have anything to compensate its lack of maneuverability ? +1 weap slot seems not enough compared to escorts, but for bops ? 1- rear weap slot but a battle cloak and a full uni boff layout seems to be doing it

carriers doesnt seem to loose anything compared to normal cruisers, so my ideas for the ships on the list are:

+1 or 2k hull ( still impractical )
+0.1 shield mod ( like this one particullarly because escorts and cruisers share almost the same shield mod )

Or adding innate abilities
1 innate tractor beam 1 (weak version or something ) with 4 minutes cooldown ( every cruisers on star trek novels have it not beeing science based only, i mean tractor beam should be an enginner skill)

or ( i love this one ) adding 4 innate emergy power to subsystem working almost the same as the innate beam targeting skills on science vessels
like : emergy power to shields, emergency power to engines, weapons and aux
these skills would have 1 minute cooldown and 30sec shared, giving +15 power to the subsystem and repairing it ( not sure if this integrated emergy power to shields would give shield points, but not shield resistance)

with this, these ships would be more resilient against more combat situations, combining it with a red matter capacitor and 1 or 2 boff emergency power skills, it would let the cruiser power not to be disabled as much as other ships ( pretty engineering based isnt it ? xP ), and you would see these ships more on pvp, not overpowering them, please consider my idea devs ...

i hope the pvp community likes this and i hope the failaxy becomes the mister galaxy class again.

sorry for my bad english, cheers
Prime

Last edited by borgresearcher; 02-02-2013 at 09:03 AM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 141
# 2
02-02-2013, 09:26 AM
You really don't need to compare cruisers against escorts to talk about what is wrong with them -- the ships are too wildly different. When you talk about maneuverability for example, it's important to remember that cruisers can more effectively employ beams (since they get 8 weapon slots) so they don't need to maneuver as much to keep all their guns on target.

Cruisers also get higher level engineering slots than anyone else, which adds a lot to survivability as well as to their team role as healers.

I'm not saying cruisers aren't weak, just that they don't need to be compared to escorts.

The basic problem with cruisers, the one which is not compensated by their engineering emphasis, is that beams are underpowered. The exact problem is debatable -- maybe it's a lack of a beam equivalent to CRF, or maybe beams drain too much power, or maybe it's some combination of factors, but ships which rely on beams can't output acceptable damage. Or maybe the problem is just that beams are the only weapon with a wide enough arc to be used by cruisers -- maybe if some torpedoes had wider arcs that could give cruisers the extra punch they need.

But the part which is lacking is firepower, and it's lacking whether you compare them to escorts or not.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
# 3
02-02-2013, 09:53 AM
I know some cruisers that would blow some escorts out of the water (note how I said SOME)

Basically what your recommending is cruisers should be zipping around like escorts

I love flying cruisers I don't find any of mine underpowered I also love flying bops and escorts

However I will agree with the first poster that it is in fact beams that are underpowered and the Boff powers that go with them crf and single cannons make beams and bfaw look like Childs play

Single cannons + turrets + crf + dem = death

Beams + bfaw + dem = uncontrollable lines going everywhere instead of on the target
----=====This is my opinion you don't have to listen and no one else has to read them these "OPINIONS" are based on my exploits and my learning other people will have their opinions and that's fine just don't knock my way of doing things thanks=====----
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 739
# 4
02-02-2013, 10:06 AM
this is the dude that was calling me noob in the other post? Ahahaha

the best premade is a 5 crusiers/carrier team, that is the answer to your post. Escorts are always the weak point in the team
John Sheridan@playhard88 - FED Tactical
Vin Naftero@playhard88 - FED Sciencie
K'tan@playhard88 - KDF Tactical
Argento@playhard88 - RRF Tactical (FED)
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,665
# 5
02-02-2013, 10:12 AM
IMHO, it's not so much that Cruisers are UP - is that it's a case that Engineering Ensign BOFF ability selection is so bad in comparison to Tactical and Science Ensign BOFF ability selection.

Tac: 9 abilities in 3 different CD groups.
Sci: 8 abilities in 7 different CD groups.
Eng: 5 abilities in 2 different CD groups where 4 of the 5 abilities are in the same CD group.

This creates an issue right from the start for a ship that's going to mainly have Eng BOFFs.

Address that issue - bring Ensign Engineering BOFFs in line with the rest and see how it goes from there. Changing anything else before that, could simply result in other problems down the line...


"Wheeeee, this is kind of fun. Oopsie...my bad."
Fleet Admiral Geist, Klingon Science Officer
Naked Sun, Apex-class Hirogen Heavy Battle Cruiser (T5U)
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,015
# 6
02-02-2013, 10:28 AM
OP you're not necessarily wrong, but 2 things:

1. Defense and movement

2. Beams and DHC

These two relationships contribute greatly to the difference in the classes. Until these are addressed things like hull and turn rate will not really get at the disparities between the classes. There have been a number of discussions in just the past few days on this so I'm not going to drag them out again.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 341
# 7
02-02-2013, 10:37 AM
Not to mention that abilities like DEM, AB, AtID and EPtA are all but useless. EPtA has it's uses but quite underwhelming and until they fix Beam Accuracy, EPtW isn't particularly great either. So all that's left is Healing.
Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 361
# 8
02-02-2013, 10:37 AM
compare a cruiser to a carrier. seems fair ? cruisers should have something to compensate that something they dont have.

yes noob, on the game you say "failaxy" and "failoddy" but here you say that cruisers are ok, you are just another escort handler affraid of getting kicked by a bigger ship, give me a cruiser that is as good to engys as the jem bug is to tacs, oh sorry, you cant =/


cruisers have 8 weap slots, but thats not energy efficient as you can see here

# Weapons--- Total Drain / Resulting Power--- Damage per Weapon--- Total damage
1---> -0 / 100--- 200%--- 200%
2---> -10 / 90--- 180%--- 360%
3---> -20 / 80--- 160%--- 480%
4---> -30 / 70--- 140%--- 560%
5---> -40 / 60--- 120%--- 600%
6---> -50 / 50--- 100%--- 600%
7---> -60 / 40--- 80%--- 560%
8---> -70 / 30--- 60%--- 480%
, thats why the default set ever comes with 1 torpedo fore and aft, cruisers resilliency is not compensated by its lack of maneuverability

all ships have some unique extras

escorts = dual heavy cannons cappable
sci vessles = sensor analisys
carrier = 2 hangar bays and some of them with more hull than cruisers
bop = fully universal stations, crazy turn rate and battle cloak
cruisers ... huh ? what ? not capable of dhc, no sensor analisys, no hangar bays, no universal stations, no crazy turn rate AT ALL, and you guys say its ok ? please

and the ships who benefit from 2 of those benefits, will loose something, as the vesta do with dhc and hangar, but 27800 hull and 1.35 shield mod

so what the cruisers gain ?
how can everybody not ride a cruiser and say its underpowered, but when its time to call that to the forum you say its ok ? obvious, escort users are affraid of the time when cruisers get what they deserve and finally show its pottencial

carriers dont loose nothing on its gain of 2 hangar slots, so my idea was to add something to the rest of the cruisers, making them balanced compared to carriers and not underpowered, which people think it is On the game

Last edited by borgresearcher; 02-02-2013 at 10:50 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,151
# 9
02-02-2013, 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by inktomi19 View Post
The basic problem with cruisers, the one which is not compensated by their engineering emphasis, is that beams are underpowered. The exact problem is debatable -- maybe it's a lack of a beam equivalent to CRF, or maybe beams drain too much power, or maybe it's some combination of factors, but ships which rely on beams can't output acceptable damage. Or maybe the problem is just that beams are the only weapon with a wide enough arc to be used by cruisers -- maybe if some torpedoes had wider arcs that could give cruisers the extra punch they need.

But the part which is lacking is firepower, and it's lacking whether you compare them to escorts or not.
Beam arrays themselves are ok (note the word of choice) I don't think their boff skills have problems, a properly used FAW is a very powerful tool and in some cases can be as powerful as CRF for cannons. An adjustment to their drain mechanics would make them good weapons the other problems that has really highlighted their weaknesses is the escorts newly increased capacity to do damage (new consoles etc) and the escorts ability to shrug off damage, fix/compensate for these and beam arrays will be a viable option once more.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,510
# 10
02-02-2013, 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by redricky View Post
OP you're not necessarily wrong, but 2 things:

1. Defense and movement

2. Beams and DHC

These two relationships contribute greatly to the difference in the classes. Until these are addressed things like hull and turn rate will not really get at the disparities between the classes. There have been a number of discussions in just the past few days on this so I'm not going to drag them out again.
Nothing else really matters right? Because it all stems from this. You have Acc and Defense that ONLY mean something when they are compared to one another. You have these modifiers that are baked into the hull, so that when we try to add hull health to compensate for crappy movement and defense....we get....even CRAPPIER movement and defense.

Granted OP you would think that sure isn't it possible they put BIGGER engines on bigger ships but no. And many of those other things you mentioned. But you didn't even need to bother. When def/acc/crit gets resolved, most of the other stuff will go away.
If I don't respond to posts on this forum don't be offended. I don't sub or follow any of them.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:05 PM.